From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 10:51:49 CST
On 30/04/2004 00:07, jameskass@att.net wrote:
>Dean Snyder wrote,
>
>
>
>>1) The script is wrongly called "Phoenician" - the same script was used
>>for Old Phoenician, Old Aramaic, Old Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite, and
>>Edomite. That is why I propose it be named "[Old] Canaanite".
>>
>>
>
>The Latin script is used for English, German, Tahitian, Apache, etc..
>But it remains the Latin script. Likewise, Phoenician is Phoenician,
>even if other users borrowed it.
>
>
This is based on a historically unproven assumption that this script
originated with the Phoenicians. I don't think it's even true that the
oldest surviving texts in this script are Phoenician.
>...
>
>Peter Kirk wrote,
>
>
>
>>Not really. Acceptance of the proposal would create an expectation that
>>Phoenician texts should be encoded with the new Phoenician characters,
>>and so that existing practices are wrong and should be changed.
>>
>>
>
>Not necessarily. The existence of a Cyrillic range doesn't preclude
>Latin script users from writing "Trotsky".
>
>
>
Yes, but writing "Trotsky" and then displaying this word with a font
using Cyrillic glyphs at Latin code points would be a mistake.
> ...
>
>>If there is such a small minority, let us hear from them. As far as I
>>know this is a minority of one.
>>
>>
>
>Please. When the Phoenician script is approved, I will post a hypertext
>version of the Meshe Stele.
>( http://home.att.net/~jameskass/phoeniciantest.htm )
>
>
The Mesha Stele (otherwise known as the Moabite Stone) is already
available in Hebrew script. What is the need for a separate encoding of
the same text?
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT